Five Alignments?

[Fallen Seraph]

Better start typing it out now.

I still think it be funny for you to save responses you would have made to some of the things talked about on the forums if you could,

To get back on subject.

I view what defines Lawful - Chaos and Good - Evil is.

Good is when you believe what your doing is for the betterment, or atleast not hindrance of others. Evil is when you know what your doing is for the betterment of yourself at the expense of others.

Lawful is when one willingly follows a personal or external code/laws believing it to be the proper course. Chaos is when one acts out based on instinctual thoughts and ideas.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is another torpedo below 4Ed's waterline for me.

I don't have any particular need to have an alignment system in RPGs- many I play, my favorites HERO and M&M included, don't use them- but if you're going to have an alignment system, have a robust one- and this simply isn't.

I may yet wind up playing 4Ed, but its unlikely I'll ever DM it.

 

[pawsplay]

Because they're chaotic and evil, mebbe? I mean, if it were just "Chaotic", it would imply no evil at all, and that seems wrong.

But if they are evil, then either

1) they are either more or less evil, or
2) being chaotic is unrelated to being evil, and hence the 9 alignments make more sense

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Chaotic Evil in my eyes is a different sort of evil. Normal evil is something that must be strived for, or acknowledged by the person. You know your doing something that harms others.

Chaotic Evil on the other hand is a instinctual, primal evil. You act out this way not because of some personal goal or vendetta, but because it is instilled in you to do these things. Thus why things like Demons are Chaotic Evil since they have no greater goal besides their instinctual wish to destroy everything.

 

[Lackhand]

But if they are evil, then either

1) they are either more or less evil, or
2) being chaotic is unrelated to being evil, and hence the 9 alignments make more sense

3) Chaotic Evil is a type of Evil -- just calling it Chaotic reads badly, though.

I mean, why not? Now, why not have other types of evil too, would be my next question. I don't have as glib an answer yet, though
I could conceive of having "Evil like an Old One" and "Evil like a demon" be different, but meh, they're both Chaotic Evil as far as I'm concerned, and close enough. They're both fairly different from "Evil like a Tyrant (read: Devil)" or "Evil like a Goblin", though.

And, in fairness, "Evil like a Goblin" is not the same as "Evil like a Tyrant" -- but I'm not sure what the right way to represent that would be (a list of Evil descriptors, mebbe?). Even given the right way to represent it, would such an alignment system lead to better games? In this specific (Goblin vs Tyrant) case, though, Lawful vs Chaos isn't really the useful split -- planning, meticulousness, and other such "What's your Int score" qualities are the differences.

 

[Clavis]

Whenever discussions of alignment break out, I try to remember what the alignment seem to actually mean in play. After all, D&D is really just a game about killing things and taking their stuff. The only Alignment difference that matters is why a character kills things and takes their stuff.

Chaotic Evil: "It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you say; I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Neutral Evil: "I'm going to kill you and take your stuff, unless you give me a good reason not to."

Lawful Evil: "Serve me, or I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Chaotic Neutral: "I might or might not kill you, but I'm taking your stuff."

Neutral: "Give me your stuff, and nobody gets hurt."

Lawful Neutral: "By any objective standard you don't deserve to keep your stuff."

Chaotic Good: "I have come to liberate you from your stuff!"

Neutral Good: "I'm going to use your stuff to benefit everybody."

Lawful Good: "In the name of the King, I am confiscating your ill-gotten stuff."

Works for me. YMMV.

 

[Burr]

Whenever discussions of alignment break out, I try to remember what the alignment seem to actually mean in play. After all, D&D is really just a game about killing things and taking their stuff. The only Alignment difference that matters is why a character kills things and takes their stuff.

Chaotic Evil: "It doesn't matter who you are, what you do, or what you say; I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Neutral Evil: "I'm going to kill you and take your stuff, unless you give me a good reason not to."

Lawful Evil: "Serve me, or I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

Chaotic Neutral: "I might or might not kill you, but I'm taking your stuff."

Neutral: "Give me your stuff, and nobody gets hurt."

Lawful Neutral: "By any objective standard you don't deserve to keep your stuff."

Chaotic Good: "I have come to liberate you from your stuff!"

Neutral Good: "I'm going to use your stuff to benefit everybody."

Lawful Good: "In the name of the King, I am confiscating your ill-gotten stuff."

Works for me. YMMV.

By those distinctions, True Neutral, Neutral Evil and Lawful Evil are practically the same even in terms of motivation: I want your stuff, so I will have it (with the least perceived effort necessary).

Your Chaotic Good fails to provide a motivation at all. It seems it would actually be, "I have come to liberate your stuff for the benefit of everyone" -- making it the practically the same motivation as Neutral Good.

Lawful Good is a bit different: "If my code allows, I will use your stuff for the good of everyone."

As such, Lawful Good is "Good With Additional Restrictions," while Chaotic Evil is "Evil with Fewer Limits." Your True Neutral, Neutral Evil, and Lawful Evil are simply Evil; and your Chaotic Good and Neutral Good are simply Good.

 

[pemerton]

How can players not "get" CG, it's a very straightforward alignment. The alignment of "rebels with a cause", just like how LE is also very straightforward as the alignment of fascist tyrants.

See, I think that true Goodness implies Law (though not vice versa). So I would tend to see "Chaotic Good" as "sorta good".

I'm with Korgoth here. Rebels with a cause who are prepared to sacrifice civilian lives and so on - that is, whose personal code and adherence to humanitarian principles is weak - are "sorta good". Rebels who adhere strictly to a code of non-violence to civilians, and who avoid (or at least regret) the deceit they practice are good. Lawful good. (Michael Walzer has an interesting discussion of the "revolutionary code" in Just and Unjust Wars. I'm not sure I agree with all of it, but I think it heads roughly in the right direction.)

Fascism can sometimes be used for good as much as evil

I don't want to violate forum rules - so I'll just note that (given the actual historical examples of Fascist and National Socialist governments) this would be a controversial premise on which to build any system of moral analysis.

Chaotic Evil: anarchists

I have a hard time seeing the actual anarchists of human history - Kropotkin, William Godwin, Benjamin Tucker and the like, with all their varying (perhaps flawed) theories of human freedom and human liberation - as being in the same moral category as Demogorgon.

This will not end well

What makes you say that?

 

[Steely Dan]

For my ongoing Planescape campaign, which will be converting to 4th Ed completely next month (we're almost there now), we have gone with:

-Lawful Good
-Chatoic Good
-Good

-Lawful
-Unaligned
-Chaotic

-Lawful Evil
-Chaotic Evil
-Evil

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I'm sure this has been said, but it makes much less sense to eliminate LE than it does to eliminate CE. NE and CE are, as far as I've ever seen or heard, almost indistinguishable. LE, on the other hand, is probably the most interesting and distinct alignment of all of them.

My favorite treatment of LE was in the Scarred Lands setting, where the ruler of Calastia (Virduk) was undeniably a tyrant, undeniably evil, yet absolutely put the well-being of his kingdom and subjects above everything. He was also beloved of his people.

I've got no problem with five alignments, but IMO it should have gone LG-G-U-E-LE. Or G-LG-U-LE-E, if you subscribe to the "hourglass" model instead of the linear model. (Why not Chaotic? Because I think the Chaotic alignment, in general, is kinda redundant. Nobody sane believes in unfettered freedom for everyone, and nobody sane believes that their own freedom should be unfairly curtailed. To the extent that freedom overlaps with Good, everybody Good is already there, really, and ditto for Evil ... you really can't tell me an Evil -- just Evil -- guy doesn't believe he should be free to do whatever he wants.)

Anyway, no way to say for sure until the full text is out, but this sure looks like a bad change. It would've been better, IMO, to just have Evil-Unaligned-Good, with the two extremes being those creatures which, in 3.5 terms, would have the [evil] or [good] descriptors. Refine those creatures -- and define everybody that's Unaligned -- by personality notes: "Devils tend to be hidebound and hierarchical. They will usually adhere to a struck bargain, but will also usually do their best to subvert its spirit."